What is the best definition of Christian marriage?

[God_I_Love]

''5For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be in one flesh. 6Therefore now they are not two, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder…7And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."

So marriage is when two become one flesh. When does this occur? When they pronounce vows? Or when they consummate the marriage?

 

[Gorgias]

So marriage is when two become one flesh. When does this occur? When they pronounce vows? Or when they consummate the marriage?

LOL – you’re asking a canon law question, there!

The Church’s understanding of the answer to your question developed over time. One school of thought was that the marriage became valid at the point that the bride was ‘given’ to the groom by the father (or alternatively, when they said “I do”). Another school of thought asserted that it was the consummation that triggered validity.

(IIRC,) it was in the middle of the last millennium that the Church decided on a compromise: validity of marriage ‘happens’ at the vows – a couple who says “I do”, having followed the Church’s prescriptions for valid marriage – are indeed validly married at that point. Consummation, on the other hand, triggers indissolubility: a valid marriage that consists of consent only (i.e., “I do”) is intrinsically indissoluble; a valid marriage that consists of both consent and consummation is extrinsically indissoluble – no one, not even the pope (!) can dissolve such a marriage…!

(Notice, however, that I’m stressing valid marriage in both cases: if a marriage is later shown to be invalid, then neither the spoken words “I do” nor consummation trumps the finding of lack of validity.)

 

[Cachonga]

Personally, when I said my vows, I believe I did so before God and man. As a result, I believe my wife and I were “joined” at that time in the eyes of God (if I had dropped dead during the reception, she would most certainly be entitled to sell my stuff, being legally married to me). We did have a reception that lasted well past midnight and were not able to consummate it until the next day. We still celebrate the day we were married, not the day we consummated our marriage.

On another note (since the topic is “Christian marriage”), I have a friend that was married by a JP. He and his wife belong to the same church and have been faithful members all their life. They have raised 3 kids, and are still happily married after more than 30 years. Would this be considered a “valid Christian marriage” even though it was not performed by a Catholic priest?

 

[Gorgias]

On another note (since the topic is “Christian marriage”), I have a friend that was married by a JP. He and his wife belong to the same church and have been faithful members all their life. They have raised 3 kids, and are still happily married after more than 30 years. Would this be considered a “valid Christian marriage” even though it was not performed by a Catholic priest?

Was your friend or his wife Catholic prior to marriage? If so, then the Catholic was required to follow the form of Christian marriage as defined by the Church (e.g., ceremony takes place in a Catholic church, officiated by a priest or deacon, unless prior dispensation had been given by the diocese). Clearly, they are civilly married. Clearly, their children are legitimate. However, if they were required to have a valid Catholic marriage ceremony, but didn’t even attempt to have one, then the Church considers their marriage invalid (from an ecclesiastical perspective). This would be known as a “lack of form” invalidity. (In order to correct this issue, and enter into a valid, sacramental marriage, they would simply have to have their marriage convalidated in the Church.)

On the other hand, if your friends were both non-Catholic at the time of the wedding, then there is no requirement for the wedding to be celebrated according to Catholic form. Therefore, as long as the wedding was valid according to their faith traditions at the time, the Church sees their marriage as valid.

Does this help answer your question? Let me know if it seems unclear to you what I’m trying to say…

Blessings,
G.

 

[Cachonga]

Gorgias:

Was your friend or his wife Catholic prior to marriage? If so, then the Catholic was required to follow the form of Christian marriage as defined by the Church (e.g., ceremony takes place in a Catholic church, officiated by a priest or deacon, unless prior dispensation had been given by the diocese). Clearly, they are civilly married. Clearly, their children are legitimate. However, if they were required to have a valid Catholic marriage ceremony, but didn’t even attempt to have one, then the Church considers their marriage invalid (from an ecclesiastical perspective). This would be known as a “lack of form” invalidity. (In order to correct this issue, and enter into a valid, sacramental marriage, they would simply have to have their marriage convalidated in the Church.)

I don’t want to bring in the discussion of divorce, since that would be another topic for another thread, but, just to carry the discussion further, suppose the wife was Catholic and had not received any dispensation (hence, the marriage by a JP rather than a Pastor or Priest). If they divorce after more than 20 years of marriage and 3 kids, could she then have a valid Catholic marriage? or what if the wife converts to Catholicism, which leads to the divorce. Could she remarry in the Catholic Church?

On the other hand, if your friends were both non-Catholic at the time of the wedding, then there is no requirement for the wedding to be celebrated according to Catholic form. Therefore, as long as the wedding was valid according to their faith traditions at the time, the Church sees their marriage as valid.

So exactly how is a marriage of 2 Christians before a JP or Pastor any different than the Catholic “sacrament” (other than being recognized as valid by the Catholic Church)? And could 2 non-Christians have a valid marriage before God (as long as it’s between 1 man and 1 woman)?

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t want to bring in the discussion of divorce, since that would be another topic for another thread

Yes, that would complicate things further!

, but, just to carry the discussion further, suppose the wife was Catholic and had not received any dispensation (hence, the marriage by a JP rather than a Pastor or Priest). If they divorce after more than 20 years of marriage and 3 kids, could she then have a valid Catholic marriage?

Yes. Now, there was one consideration that I think you didn’t explicitly mention: I’m presuming that both of your friends were free to marry when they were married by a JP. (That is, neither of them had contracted marriage before; or had contracted marriage previously but had received a decree of nullity with respect to any prior marriages.)

With that in mind… if a person is in a legal civil marriage, but that marriage is not considered valid by the Catholic Church (either because there was a Catholic spouse and a lack of form problem; or because that marriage was found to be invalid through the nullity process), then the person is free to marry, all other things being equal.

(On the face of it, that sounds very harsh and unfair. “Wait a doggone minute!” you might be tempted to respond. “They have children! They were married for 20 years! Surely that counts for something!!!” If you’re asking about the children, there’s no impact on them with respect to the question of ‘validity’ or ‘nullity’: the children are legitimate. Period. If you’re asking about the ability of the Church to declare a 20-year marriage null, you’re on the right track – it might prove to be quite difficult to ascertain that such a marriage began invalidly (after all, the notion of ‘validity’ speaks to the time that the wedding happened, and not what happened subsequently during the lifetime of the marriage.)

or what if the wife converts to Catholicism, which leads to the divorce. Could she remarry in the Catholic Church?

By this, I presume you mean that both spouses are non-Catholic Christians at the time of the wedding? If so, then the Church presumes that the marriage is valid; the ex-wife would have to go through the formal nullity process, allowing the Church to discern whether there was any situation that would lead to a conclusion that the marriage was null from the beginning. Short of this kind of declaration, then Church would say that she was not free to marry, since her Christian marriage to her current ex-husband is presumed valid.

So exactly how is a marriage of 2 Christians before a JP or Pastor any different than the Catholic “sacrament” (other than being recognized as valid by the Catholic Church)?

It isn’t, at least from the perspective of its validity and sacramentality.

If two (non-Catholic) Christians are free to marry, and if they consent to the marriage, and they follow any prescriptions of form that their church requires, then the Catholic Church respects that they are validly, sacramentally married. That marriage would be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church!

(The difference is when a Catholic gets married by a JP. In doing so, s/he has not followed the requirements of ‘form’ prescribed by his/her Church, and therefore, the Church says that the marriage is not valid.)

And could 2 non-Christians have a valid marriage before God (as long as it’s between 1 man and 1 woman)?

Yes: non-Christians can have valid, natural marriages. (They can’t have a sacramental marriage, of course, since a sacramental marriage requires two Christian spouses.)

 

[God_I_Love]

LOL – you’re asking a canon law question, there!

The Church’s understanding of the answer to your question developed over time. One school of thought was that the marriage became valid at the point that the bride was ‘given’ to the groom by the father (or alternatively, when they said “I do”). Another school of thought asserted that it was the consummation that triggered validity.

(IIRC,) it was in the middle of the last millennium that the Church decided on a compromise: validity of marriage ‘happens’ at the vows – a couple who says “I do”, having followed the Church’s prescriptions for valid marriage – are indeed validly married at that point. Consummation, on the other hand, triggers indissolubility: a valid marriage that consists of consent only (i.e., “I do”) is intrinsically indissoluble; a valid marriage that consists of both consent and consummation is extrinsically indissoluble – no one, not even the pope (!) can dissolve such a marriage…!

(Notice, however, that I’m stressing valid marriage in both cases: if a marriage is later shown to be invalid, then neither the spoken words “I do” nor consummation trumps the finding of lack of validity.)

Well just based on my understanding it seems that consummation is when ‘‘two become one flesh’’, or as you stated ‘‘indissoluble’’. Because if a couple never consummate the marriage my understanding is that they can seek an annulment (the marriage never took place to begin with). So my question is then do, ‘‘two become one flesh’’, when they have sex?

 

[Gorgias]

if a couple never consummate the marriage my understanding is that they can seek an annulment (the marriage never took place to begin with).

Actually, no. If a couple does not consummate the marriage (and they can prove it), it is possible to seek a dissolution (not a decree of nullity). The dissolution doesn’t assert that “the marriage never took place to begin with”; rather, the marriage itself was valid, but the pope is able to dissolve it (since it was never consummated).

Well just based on my understanding it seems that consummation is when ‘‘two become one flesh’’, or as you stated ‘‘indissoluble’’.

Hmm… well, the two have become one flesh – that is, have become validly married – at their exchange of consent. However, that marriage is able to be dissolved (not nullified!) if they do not consummate the marriage. I’m not certain that I’d say that they’re not “one flesh” prior to consummation, since it’s the consent that makes them a validly married couple!

 

[God_I_Love]

Actually, no. If a couple does not consummate the marriage (and they can prove it), it is possible to seek a dissolution (not a decree of nullity). The dissolution doesn’t assert that “the marriage never took place to begin with”; rather, the marriage itself was valid, but the pope is able to dissolve it (since it was never consummated).

Hmm… well, the two have become one flesh – that is, have become validly married – at their exchange of consent. However, that marriage is able to be dissolved (not nullified!) if they do not consummate the marriage. I’m not certain that I’d say that they’re not “one flesh” prior to consummation, since it’s the consent that makes them a validly married couple!

So do two become one flesh ONLY in the case of a valid marriage? Furthermore if it is at the exchange of consent, can two become married simply by consenting one to another with no formal process? Would they, at mutual consent to be man and wife, become one?

 

[Gorgias]

Boy, I wish there were ‘easy’ (i.e., ‘short’) answers to your questions.

But, you’re asking questions that require precise answers, so…

So do two become one flesh ONLY in the case of a valid marriage?

First off, it’s important to note that the Church has the responsibility and authority to protect and administer the sacraments. This means that, if the Church has spoken on the validity and liceity (i.e., “what makes this a sacrament” and “what steps should be taken in the celebration of the sacrament”), then the Church is fulfilling its duties to properly define and protect the sacrament.

So, given that the Church has made these kinds of statements in the context of marriage, then yes: what God intends (the “one flesh union”) only happens in the context of a valid marriage.

Furthermore if it is at the exchange of consent, can two become married simply by consenting one to another with no formal process?

I would answer you ‘no’. Here’s the thing: way back when (think, like, early medieval times), there was no formal process. People would go off, proclaim vows to each other privately (with no one else around), and be married validly. (After all, at that time, there was no formal process like we have today.) The problem was, people were being victimized. A couple would marry, and then one of the spouses would find someone who was a better ‘catch’, and then say, “what? I married her? Oh, no, you’re mistaken. I never married her. I’m free to marry this rich girl over there!” And, in that instant, the other spouse had no recourse – they were validly married, but could not prove it, and therefore, were out of luck.

So, the Church stepped in, for the sake of the victimized spouses, and established rules. Marriages would have to take place publicly, in a church; they would have to be witnessed by an official representative of the Church (a priest or a deacon); the marriage would be officially recorded by the Church in a parish register. This is where the notion of ‘form’ comes in. These requirements do not proceed from Christ’s discussion of marriage as found in the Scripture, per se; they proceed from the Church’s valid exercise of its duty to regulate the sacraments.

The Catholic Church continues to have these requirements of form for a valid marriage; in general, Reformation denominations do not. (This doesn’t mean that Protestants don’t have requirements of form, so to speak – it’s just that they defer these requirements to what the government requires (the couple must be free to marry, they must have a valid marriage license from the state, they must be married by someone recognized by the state to perform the wedding, and they must have witnesses), and they don’t add any additional requirements themselves.)

So, although it might appear that you’re asking a question about ‘consent’, you’re really just asking a question about ‘form’. So, in answer to your question, ‘no’: in order for it to be a valid marriage, there cannot simply be a secret exchange of consent; there are certain prescriptions of form, which define how that consent is exchanged, for a valid civil or Catholic wedding.

Would they, at mutual consent to be man and wife, become one?

That’s the question you asked before. I would answer ‘yes’ – they are validly married at the point that they exchange consent in a valid ceremony, and at that point, are a “one flesh union.”

 

[God_I_Love]

So two cannot be one flesh outside of a valid marriage?
A couple, without knowing the gospel, what happens there?

Now I personally agree with the legal aspect of it and the importance of vows and making it public. I’m just wondering specifically about when that union takes place and in what situations.

 

[Gorgias]

So two cannot be one flesh outside of a valid marriage?

That seems like an odd question, doesn’t it? I mean, if the marriage isn’t valid… how can it meet the standards of what God has in mind for human matrimony?

In any case, I think it’s important to reiterate that the definition of what makes a valid marriage varies by the couple (vis-a-vis their baptisms – Catholic? Christian? Unbaptized?).

A couple, without knowing the gospel, what happens there?

It’s important to note that a Catholic cleric has no jurisdiction to marry a couple if there isn’t at least one Catholic spouse. So, no Catholic priest or deacon would be in a position to marry two unbaptized persons. But, let’s suppose that two unbaptized persons marry and later, divorce. Still later, one of these divorcees meets a Catholic and wishes to marry him. The Church would still recognize the validity of the first marriage, presuming it meets the usual criteria (was it a valid marriage according to the laws of the land? did they consent? were they free to marry at the time of the wedding?), and would require that the divorcee go through the process for nullity before allowing the two to marry in the Church. (It’s a slightly different case if the unbaptized person wishes to be baptized, and that’s the root cause of the breakup of the first marriage, but that’s a whole 'nother story…)

Remember – the Church makes requirements of form on Catholics; it respects other spouses’ Churches and religions when they declare that a couple is validly married.

I’m just wondering specifically about when that union takes place and in what situations.

The Church would say that, in all cases, exchanged consent makes the marriage, provided that the couple is free to marry.